Talk:Deflector shield
PNA-cite PNA-cite -- the first two paragraphs completely lack any references (with exception of one sentence). --Alan del Beccio 05:19, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) Because of the complexity of this configuration's geometry, it is generally weaker than ellipsoid configuration. -- That's up to discussion. There is no reason the Enterprise in Nemesis would switch to a weaker shield configuration with an adversary like the Scimitar. It appears to me that contour-conforming shields are stronger, or at least more power-conserving than the bubble shields at similar strength levels. Additional Comment from Admiral Q: The Enterprise-E seems to be an odd case as far as shield configurations go. In First Contact when the ship swoops in between the Defiant and the Cube, weapons fire hits the Enterprise and it shows elliptical shields. Then in Nemesis when it's being chased down by the Scimitar, it appears to have contour shields. Whether this is because of technology advances between First Contact and Nemesis is unknown/up to debate. I'd like to think from a timeline point of view, Voyager returning home is between the events of the two films. Since it was established in Endgame that the ablative armour technology provided by Admiral Janeway could be installed on Voyager (and seemed to deploy in exactly the same manner as her shuttle), shouldn't the Enterprise-E have been upgraded with the same armour technology? And since the Borg had trouble getting through the armour on Voyager (direct hits from cubes did little damage), it stands to reason that the Scimitar would do even less to an Enterprise-E equipped with the same (or more powerful) ablative armour generators. Direction I think this whole discussion is going in the wrong direction. First off, though it is common knowledge that shield configurations can altered and adjusted, we can't be sure that any of the times where we observed apparent on screen evidence of different shield configurations it wasn't just a production error. One great example of this is Operation Return I find it hard to believe all ships in this battle either decided to use no shields or the exact same shield configuration. You may also want to note that almost every time an adjustment is made to a main ship system whether its polarizing hull plating or rotating a shield frequency its always backed up by on-screen dialogue. On top of that, dialogue always trumps visual evidence. How many times have we seen USS Voyager, Defiant, or Enterprise masquerading as another vessel. Sometimes the production staff doesn't even remember to alter the registry numbers. Usually, the only reason we even know it's different ship altogether is that some character conveniently points its out. Now in terms of the ablative armor there could be a million reasons why Starfleet decided not to equip its vessels with Ablative hull armor future type (see discussion), but I think logically it probably has to do with temporal prime directive and not altering the timeline.--Illwill 05:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Defence Fields? In Wrath of Khan, when Kirk goes to Yellow alert, he brings weapons to full power, and also charges the "defence fields". They appear to be some sort of force field that protects the vital areas of the ship. Could someone back me up on this? Should we make an article about it?--CaptainCaca 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :I'll check my DVD when I get home, but I am 99% sure some sort of field is raised. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I will also reveiw my VHS of it (I know, I'm a dinsaur!). But some extra insight of this could be useful.--CaptainCaca 19:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I just noticed this blurb in the talk, but in Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, though I've seen this not referred to as canon, there is mention of the defense fields. The entry in the book was something to the effect of a localized shield meant to protect the command area (A Deck) and B deck on the Constitution-Class refit. I would guess that it's a precautionary measure to protect the command and control area of the ship in case of a surprise attack while at yellow alert, allowing time for the ship's primary defenses to come online. I would say we should make an article about it, but whether or not it should be merged in with Deflector Shield i'm not sure. It's not a shield, it's a field! ;) – Raiyven 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Preemptive Strike shield weakness I think the part about a weakness in the aft shields that a Maquis raider can penetrate should be removed. It seems clear, at least to me, both from the dialogue and the script, that there was no real weakness but that the event was staged by Ro and Picard. Firstly, Ro sent Picard a message before she tried to enter the shields. Granted, the message ended up garbled, so we don't know what it said; it's possible that it just said "This is Ro exploiting your known weakness, so don't destroy me," but it's more likely that it was Ro asking Picard to play along. More significantly, the Enterprise both detects Ro's attempted entry and has the power to stop it (Picard's "let her through" implies that the Enterprise could have stopped her if it wanted to), so any weakness there may be is, at best, easily overcome. Finally, the script gives the following description for Ro as she breaks through the Enterprise's shields: :as Ro works her controls. We see her react to :something she sees -- a small smile... Picard must have :gotten her message. For Kalita's sake, she plays it :through. Script for Preemptive Strike, at scene 32F, available at http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgeneration/season7/tng-724.txt (emphasis added). In light of all this, I don't think that this entry should state the weakness as if it were fact, especially if the only support for stating that ships have this weakness as a matter of fact is that Ro and Picard's collusion in this instance doesn't mean that the weakness doesn't really exist in other instances. Puritan 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :I disagree. As far as I can see, this does not state that there is not weakness, only that if not warned, the planned use of that weakness might not have worked. The message Ro sent made sure that the Enterprise did nothing to stop using the weakness. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::Well, as nothing in Preemptive Strike affirmatively does say there is a weakness either, I think that the burden of proof should be on establishing that there is a weakness, given that we're debating as to whether it "might" not have worked or "would" not have worked (with no support for the argument that it definitely would have worked). But anyway, I'd be interested to hear what people think. Puritan 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :Except that there is something that says there is a weakness. Remember the part about Ro describing it? Section 32D of your script. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::True, but Ro is also posing as someone who has betrayed Starfleet (which is true later on, but isn't true at this point) and needs to find a way to justify how she got those supplies while still denying collusion with Picard, so she's already lying in this situation. ::I think we just have a difference in view of how trustworthy characters are in general; you lean towards accepting statements as true unless explicitly proven false, whereas I am more inclined to be suspicious of characters who are dishonest, leaving it an open question. (I don't think that Ro's actions conclusively prove that there isn't a weakness either, only that they don't prove that there is one.) I tried looking up the Memory Alpha policy on how much we should take characters' comments at face value, i.e. what burden of proof we should use in evaluating them (do rebuttals of comments have to be explicitly clear and convincing, or is it sufficient if the situation merely implies that they are significantly suspect?), but I couldn't find it. Anyway, this is probably becoming too long a back-and-forth for a discussion page (not sure what the standard is for that either...) Puritan 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Deflectors vs Shields It is important to disguish between Deflectors and Shields. They come from similar technology but they do different tasks. Deflectors create like a cone out in front of the ship so that when travelling at high speeds (i.e. warp) small space objects like tiny rocks, space junk, etc are bounced out of the way before the ship hits them at high speed. Without deflectors, in theory, it would be like riddling a paperbag with a machine gun. Shields on the other hand are used for defences when it comes to conflict. There is no deflector shield. There are deflector fields, and defence shields. They are two seperate technologies that perform two very important yet seperate tasks on a ship. Gene Roddenberry once describe the differences between these two technologies he had thought up in a meeting with his writers that was video taped, and was later used during interviews of prospective candidates for a writing position with Star Trek. It is important to show both shields and decflectors as TWO SEPERATE articles for technology and not one in the same. :Find canon evidence for that claim, and you can do that. I think you are confusing deflector shields with the navigational deflector, though. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :: From " :" ::: KIRK: Yes, Mister Spock. This is the Captain. Condition Yellow Alert. Phaser crews stand by. Deflector shields up. We're going in. Peacefully, I hope. But peacefully or not, we're going in. :: From : ::: Some Guy (?): Deflector shields on maximum. Phasers manned, sir. :: From : ::: SPOCK: I am aware of the Rigel system's population, Commodore, but we are only one ship. Our deflector shields are strained, our subspace transmitter is useless. Logically, our primary duty is to survive in order to warn Starfleet Command. ::: (scenes later) ::: SPOCK: Deflector shields at full power. They can't take much more of this. ::: (scenes later) ::: SPOCK: Sir, deflector shields are gone. ::: (scenes later) ::: SPOCK: Warp drive out. Deflector shields down. Transporter under repair. We are on emergency impulse power. :: From : ::: KYLE: Captain, deflector shields just snapped on. ::: (scenes later) ::: SCOTT: We lost five percent of our energy reserve, sir. Our deflector shields are weakened. :: From : ::: SULU: Captain, deflector shields just came on. ::: (scenes later) ::: CHEKOV: Sir, deflector shield just came on. Speed increasing to warp four. ::: (scenes later) ::: CHEKOV: Sir, deflector shields have dropped. :: From : ::: KIRK: Captain's log. Using the lightspeed breakaway factor, the [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)|''Enterprise]] has moved back through time to the twentieth century. We are now in extended orbit around Earth, using our ship's deflector shields to remain unobserved. Our mission, historical research. We are monitoring Earth communications to find out how our planet survived desperate problems in the year 1968.'' :: From : ::: KIRK: Lieutenant, sound red alert. Mr. Chekov, deflector shields on full. Phaser gun crews, lock on target. :: From : ::: KIRK: ''Deflector shields up. Scotty, can you give me partial power on the phaser banks? :: From : ::: KIRK: Deflector shields activated, Mr. Sulu? :: From : ::: YAR: Deflector shield power weakening, Captain. ::: (scenes later) ::: YAR: Deflector shields failing, phasers going inoperative, sir... :: From : ::: YAR: Deflector shields holding, sir. :: From : ::: ALLENBY: Deflector shields are not encountering elevated levels of interstellar matter... :: From : ::: T'PEL: What is the field strength of the ship's deflector shields at maximum output? :: From : ::: QUARK: Let's see, where to begin... she wanted some deflector shields... navigational arrays... maybe... a couple of hundred photon torpedoes. :: From : ::: SISKO: Chief, did you ever finish those upgrades on the deflector shields? :: From : ::: COMPUTER: Affirmative. Warp core is offline. The ship is restricted to emergency power and auxiliary systems only. Structural integrity breach on deck six, deck seven and deck twelve. Deflector shields inoperative. Weapons array offline. Communications offline. Sewage and waste reclamation offline. :: From : ::: JANEWAY: Let's see. There was a problem with one of the deflector shields. You'll want to follow up on that. And Stellar Cartography was hoping for a review of their latest report. I think Tuvok wanted to discuss something about weapons storage. :: From : ::: KIM: Captain, their deflector shields are creative a feedback loop. It's neutralizing the tractor emitter. :: The writers of those episodes apparently missed Roddenberry's lesson.--Tim Thomason 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I don't know if it is a translation error but the appendix of this german book (ISBN: 3453108078) mentioned "shields" and "deflectors" as two similiar systems which both can be "raised", i.e. powered with energy, the only difference is that during activated shields it is impossible to beam, during activated deflectors it is not (and shields are against weapon fire, deflectors against asteroids etc., vide supra). That is a little bit confusing, because the deflector is alwayays activated, is it? Furthermore the german original text calls the first system "Abwehrschild" and the second system "Deflektorschirm", if I had to translate it, I would guess "defence-shield" and "deflector-visor" (side note: the book refers to the technology level of TNG). -- 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ::First, such a claim is invalid because it is based on non-canon information. Also, since Star Trek is a US production, we go by the language it was written in when creating articles. As said to you already, you seem to be confusing shields with the navigational deflector.--31dot 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC) :::As an aside, the book to which he refers is this one. -- sulfur 14:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Neither I nor the book confuse the two systems, the description how the deflecor works is strange, that's all. -- 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ::::according to a documentary on the dvd of star trek the next generation. deflectors and shields are different things. that was said by a person that were told by the founder of star trek. it seems however that lots of writers have done mistakes regarding the matter. (that is the reason for all the confusion.) The following uncited excerpt from the article appears to also confuse the navigational deflector and the deflector shields: "Shield energies could be emitted from a localized antenna or "dish", such as a ship's navigational deflector, or from a network of "grid" emitters laid out on the object's surface, such as a starship's hull." Since there is a separate article for the Navigaional Deflector array, I think this article should focus only on the defensive uses of "shield energies" to avoid further confusion. 18:14, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :It isn't confusing anything. The "shield energies" you suggest we focus on can come from either a grid of emitters, or from a dish at the navigational deflector. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC) :::Is there any canon source that confirms both deflector shields and the navigational deflector work on the same principle or output the same types of energy? If so that source needs to be cited on this passage, if not I think there is a good case for separating information about the two. 19:51, October 13, 2011 (UTC) seems that a lot of writers have done mistakes. shields and deflector is however different. (according to bonus materiel on the the next generation dvds.) therefore the article title should be shields.-- 16:11, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :Well, no, because Memory Alpha doesn't work that way. Our articles are written based on canon, which to summarise is information from the episodes and films. Tim Thomason above cited eighteen episodes, spanning four series, showing that the defensive system can properly be called "deflector shields". That a TNG special feature claims it is a mistake could be noted in "Background Information", but it doesn't override all those canonical statements.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 08:48, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Shield: The Original Deflector , or not]] So if shield redirects here, a singular form hardly (if ever) used to refer to deflectors, where exactly does the original shield fit into MA's grand scheme? --Alan 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) :I say we should have an article for the original shield at shield and add a disambiguation note linking to deflector shield at the top of the page. That would seem to be the logical course of action, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC) ::I agree with changing shield into an article about the "original" blocking device. ::At the moment, it seems like some articles use shields to link to deflector shield, while others use shields. If we did make this change, how would we resolve this? Would/could we change all of the former into the latter to maintain the distinction? Or would that be too confusing?– Cleanse 06:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Changing shields to shields is no problem, an easy bot fix. It would just have to be something that is monitored, like anything else. --Alan 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) ::Fair enough.– Cleanse 00:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Different Shapes I believe that there is canon evidence on whether or not ships can alter the configuration of their shields. The Enterprise-E has used both the ellipsoid and form fitting shield configurations visible in First Contact and Nemesis respectively. Now whether or not that is a result of uprating as the E has been refitted once or twice between the two movies, but it bears mentioning that at least one class has demonstrated both kinds of configurations. This opens the question of whether there is a preferred configuration or if one is for saving energy. It certainly proves that neither is better than the other as it wouldn't make sense for a Sovereign class Enterprise-E to revert to the shield style of the first two Enterprises. Beaming through shields on Intrepid- and Sovereign-class ships From the article: :Normally transporters are not capable of penetrating shields. (TOS: "Arena") Older Federation starships, such as the Constitution-class USS Enterprise, could not even transport through their own shields, but later starships such as the Intrepid-class and Sovereign-class vessels could transport personnel and objects freely to and fro without having to lower their shields. This would seem to be a slight inaccuracy; despite the fact that we've seen transporters used through shields on Intrepid- and Sovereign-class vessels, at least a few times on Voyager it was specifically stated that they could not transport through their own shields. One possible explanation for this would be the alternate type of shielding referenced somewhere in TOS (according to the transporter article it's in but I couldn't find it in the transcript, though I do distinctly remember having heard it somewhere in TOS onscreen) that allowed a ship to use its own transporters, but with the limitation that phasers could not be fired through the shields. One could theorize that in the instances where Voyager beams through its shields, they switched to this alternate shielding just long enough to operate the transporter, then switched back in time to fire their phasers again as necessary. (This would be quite easy to do in a very short amount of time given observed computer capabilities of the time.) Of course, this is just speculation, but nonetheless because of the ambiguity on this topic, it might be worth a brief "background info"-type mention, like this: :Normally transporters are not capable of penetrating shields. (TOS: "Arena") Older Federation starships, such as the Constitution-class USS Enterprise, could not even transport through their own shields, but later starships such as the Intrepid-class and Sovereign-class vessels could transport personnel and objects freely to and fro without having to lower their shields. .}} Would this be acceptable for the article, or does it register too high on the speculation-o-meter? :-) -Mdettweiler 04:46, November 12, 2009 (UTC) History or Timeline A history or timeline of shields would be useful, specifically when they were introduced (Vulcans had them in Enterprise but Earth didn't). 08:25, July 11, 2013 (UTC) :Go ahead and write a development section for the article. Warp drive article has a good example of one. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:30, July 11, 2013 (UTC)